High Court of Bombay
4,240 judgments
M/s. Shrinath Cotfab & Ors. v. The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank & Ors.
The Bombay High Court upheld the DRAT order requiring pre-deposit based on the entire outstanding debt under SARFAESI Act when the challenge is to Section 13(4) measures, dismissing the petitioners' plea to limit it to the auction sale price.
Invest Assets Securitisations & Reconstruction Private Limited v. Bank of Baroda
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an auction sale for non-compliance with Regulation 37(1) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, holding that the assignee waived the mandatory procedural requirement by failing to raise timely objections.
Sachin Manohar Khambe v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld the State Government’s categorization of a convict serving concurrent life sentences under stricter remission guidelines, ruling that concurrent sentences under Section 427(2) CrPC justify applying the 2010 remission policy requiring 30 years imprisonment including remission.
Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Purnanadu Shekharmal Jain
The Bombay High Court held that the SARFAESI Act provisions override the MPID Act in respect of properties mortgaged prior to attachment, quashing the MPID attachment to uphold the secured creditor’s rights.
Amrapali Sakharam Kamble v. The District Collector
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of a No-Confidence motion against a Gram Panchayat Sarpanch, ruling that procedural compliance and the majority’s will must be respected, and dismissed the petitioner’s challenge under Articles 226 and 227.
The Municipal Commissioner Pune Municipal Corporation v. Ms Safia Abdul Salam Shaikh
The Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission lacks jurisdiction to pass binding orders on employment promotions, quashing its order directing retrospective promotion and benefits.
Shree Machhi Mahajan v. The Collector
The High Court quashed an order deleting a society's name from land records for violation of natural justice, directing fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.
Riyaz Ismail Machhiwala & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The Bombay High Court held that the one-time premium under the 2019 and 2021 Government Resolutions can only be charged on exempted surplus vacant land under Section 20 of the ULC Act, directing refund of excess premium paid on the entire land.
Gandharva Dhaneshwar Patil v. State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court held that the Collector is not mandatorily required to refer disputes under Section 76 of the Land Acquisition Act and dismissed the petition challenging refusal to refer compensation dispute to the Authority.
Dashrath Shiva Korlekar v. Devendra Murari Korlekar & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that amendments to pleadings after evidence closure require due diligence and cannot be allowed to expand the suit's scope or parties known at inception, quashing the trial court's order permitting such amendment at final arguments stage.
Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. Shashi Mehra HUF
The Bombay High Court upheld arbitral awards holding that authorized trades confirmed by the investor cannot be disowned to claim refund of brokerage, dismissing the petition challenging refund direction.
Eka Academy Private Limited v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that a written admission of tax liability before the SVLDRS cut-off date constitutes quantification, quashing the rejection of the petitioner’s declaration and directing fresh consideration.
Shri Madhukar Mahadev Patil v. Sangli Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that Cooperative Courts lack jurisdiction over service disputes between cooperative societies and employees under Section 91 of the MCS Act, dismissed the petitioner's dispute, and allowed filing a civil suit with limitation protection.
Divvela Ramaiah v. Union of India
The Bombay High Court upheld Regulation 10 of the 2017 Regulations restricting Certificates of Practice to Fellow Members of the Institute of Actuaries of India, holding it constitutionally valid and consistent with the Act.
Indo Allied Protein Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court upheld a pre-qualification tender condition requiring experience of providing 300 labourers at 70 locations as valid and not arbitrary, dismissing writ petitions challenging it in the interest of public welfare and administrative efficiency.
Pramod Dhanji Purabiya v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR alleging rape based on a false promise to marry, holding that the allegations disclose a cognizable offence and the court cannot conduct a mini trial at the quashing stage.
Yakub Baig Trust Panvel v. Ganu Mahadu Gaikar
The High Court upheld the tenant's right to purchase land under Section 32G of the BT & AL Act, rejecting the trust's claim of exemption under Section 88-B due to lack of ownership and registration on the tillers' day.
Madura Coats Employees Union v. Coats India & Anr.
The Bombay High Court held that union office bearers attending court proceedings are entitled to salary under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Act, recognizing long-standing practices and quashing the Industrial Court's order deducting salary.
Asset Auto India Private Limited v. The Union of India
The Bombay High Court held that the Regional Director cannot reject a scheme of amalgamation directly under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013, and must file an application before the NCLT if objections exist, quashing the impugned rejection order.
Saddam Kadar Bedade v. S.V. Mohite
The High Court allowed the Workmen’s Compensation appeal holding that police statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are admissible in civil claims and the deceased was an employee entitled to compensation.